A Chicago Blog

Today Congress questions MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, Special Investigator George Mitchell, and Players Union Boss (and slimy weasel) Donald Fehr, on the Steroid-Asterisk era in baseball. It should be interesting, if only to watch Selig & Fehr both dance and weave around questions regarding their seeming do-nothing stance for YEARS on the use of steorids by players in baseball.

Carol Slezak in today’s Sun-Times asks an interesting question of baseball fans, more specifically Cubs fans, and the anger and angst that is being debated regarding the Cubs pursuit of (one-time ha-ha-ha) steroid user Brian Roberts of the Baltimore Orioles.

What do you think? Should the Cubs take the moral high ground and back-off any deals with known steroid or HGH abusers?

I would argue the Cubs don’t need Roberts, simply because they have a good, dependable player in Mark DeRosa, and trading Marshall & Gallagher in a potential Roberts deal could be a big mistake if the #4 (Marquis) and probable #5 (Dempster) pitchers falter.

I had no idea Spielberg was working on a Lincoln movie. But I guess he is. It should be awesome except that Abe will be played by Liam Neeson, a choice I just can’t figure. Question is, who SHOULD play Lincoln?

My gut reaction? Bleh …

I understand that it is getting harder and harder to make money in the media business and that the consequence of this fact is major changes in the newspaper business. Last week the Sun-Times laid off dozens of staff in an effort to avoid going belly-up. And they still might. These lay off came just months after a dramatic redesign that was supposed to trim content and make the paper more readable.

Now the Tribune is making changes supposedly for the better. They have narrowed the paper’s size once again, alleged in response to changing industry standards. Fine. They’ve changed the nameplate (see below), supposedly to make it look less “cluttered” and not to save money on blue ink. Fine. Boring but fine.

My biggest concern is the loss of content. They write:”Throughout the paper we have simplified our layout, reduced clutter and made our columns less dense in order to make the type easier to read.”

Have they cut content? Does “less dense” mean just “less?”

I also question the timing of these changes. They just this month raised the price to $0.75, which certainly drove away some readers. Now they’ve changed the format and design. The question is will doubling up these changes mitigate the lost readership by bringing a little new interest? Or will it simply reinforce the conviction of those who have decided there’s no longer any reason to buy the print Tribune? I don’t have an answer, but I’d love to hear their reasoning.

Julie Keller has a terrific column in today’s Tribune. I don’t often gush about anyone over at the Trib, but this is perhaps the most intelligent article I’ve read since I moved to Chicago nine years ago. Keller explores both the vacancy and the potency of the concept of “change.” She closes on the eternal ramifications of the word:

The genuine riddles of change, however, long predate 21st Century elections. As Steeves notes, the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that one cannot step in the same river twice; the moment passes, never to return, and all is altered. Change is inevitable. Yet to Socrates’ way of thinking, Steeves says, some things must remain stable and eternal.

“The word ‘change’ is tossed around as a buzzword,” Steeves acknowledges, “but there are very ancient questions embedded in the idea of ‘change’: If something is changing, what is the ‘it’ that’s changing? And is there something universal and stable beneath the change?”

Indeed, in our culture, change appears to have achieved its own stability. The economy changes yearly. The pop culture changes daily. And while this gives us great anxiety, it also gives us some comfort that there’s always hope just ahead. Psychoanalysts call concepts like change “enigmatic signifiers,” concepts that have meaning and yet that meaning is always moving and changing. The meaning is enigmatic. Thus, these concepts can play a very powerful role in our psyche. They can become attached to our very identity if we allow them. Think of “justice” and “freedom.” Many of us may even consider dying for such ideals. But how many really understand what they mean?

Of course, Julia isn’t really discussing the psychology of change so much as the politics. In politics we are constantly inundated with calls for change and yet nothing ever does. I wonder sometimes whether this cycle of hope and disappointment will ultimately lead to cultural cynicism or to a heightened sensitivity to the charisma and the rhetoric of change, a sensitivity bordering on mass delusion.

But the change problem is not merely socio-psychological. Because one has to ask whether or not the system is broken such that it can no longer change. And if that is so, how long can Americans really embrace their Democracy as legitimate?

These are all questions without answers. And perhaps what is most impressive about the Keller article is that she doesn’t try to create answers where there are none. Kudos.

We’re already broke and we haven’t even started trying to solve global warming yet!

There’s a good thread over at CapitolFax about whether or not the Sun-Times is going under. I think the answer is a definite … maybe. But I have a plan that could divert their disaster: give the paper away for free. The Tribune’s RedEye is cleaning up the free paper market and it’s a joke of a newspaper. A free Sun-Times would be a no brainer for most commuters. You at least get a few good columns and some real news along with your sudoku, right? Just a suggestion.

I’m still a little confused by the pursuit of lead-off man Brian Roberts. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why the Cubs are interested in Roberts: .290 AVG, .377 OBP. But they’re looking at trading Sean Marshall, who is one of the more consistent Cubs starters. They obviously hope that Dempster can take the fifth spot, but that’s a bit of a gamble. And the Cubs still remain a little lite when it comes to starting pitching. I’m not going to object to a Roberts deal, but if it comes at the expense of getting another quality starter then I think it could prove a costly mistake. But I guess they pay guys a lot of money to make those kinds of decisions right?

It’s sad to think we live in a world where presidential campaign must be summed up in essentially one word in order to be viable. But we do. I’m working on a column to this effect … but in the meantime check out Chuck Todd’s analysis of candidate branding.

In case you were wonder whether or not Iowa really mattered:

Obama caucus vote: 38%
Obama NH Polls: 37.3% (RCP Avg. as of 1/7)
Pct Bounce: +10 pps

Huckabee caucus vote: 34%
Huckabee NH Polls: 11.7% (RCP Avg. as of 1/7)
Pct. Bounce: +1.7 pps

Huckabee’s bounce is anything but impressive and says something about his campaign. He’s been running on a shoestring budget and, lacking the organizational infrastructure, has been unable to actually leverage his win in Iowa. Obama however, has no money problem and is highly organized in Iowa. So while Iowa can help, there is a fundamental rule in politics that still holds true: campaigns matter.

Obama is clearly running the best campaign so far out of any of the candidates in either party.